Academic Achievement Assessment Committee
Report for 2003-2004
September 2004

Purpose: This report describes the composition, activities, and progress of the University of Wisconsin – Parkside’s Academic Achievement Assessment Committee (AAAC) for the academic year 2003-2004.

The AAAC’s formal charge is to develop and monitor procedures for the assessment of a variety of student learning outcomes or skills/abilities based on the expectations, requirements, and needs of a number of different stakeholders. Included are quantitative and verbal skills assessment as required by the UW System. Also included are the general education learning outcomes, which were substantially modified during the 03-04 academic year. Finally, assessment within the majors and programs, although ultimately the responsibility of departments or programs, is supported and monitored by the AAAC.

The AAAC was created by the UW – Parkside Faculty Senate in the spring of 1992 to implement and provide “…oversight of assessment of student learning…including

(1) ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction in verbal and quantitative skills and in general education;

(2) making recommendations for improving these programs on the basis of the AAAC’s evaluations;

(3) supporting other assessment activities on campus such as program reviews and surveys of alumni, graduating seniors, etc.;

(4) identifying and recommending to the Faculty Senate changes in ongoing assessment programs, should the need arise.”

In addition, the faculty senate provided the following charge:

“The assessment committee shall make recommendations for changes in instruction in verbal and quantitative skills and in general education. The recommendations shall be contained in an annual report provided each fall to department chairs, the Faculty Senate, the deans, the Vice Chancellor, the Director of Advising, and the Director of Educational Support Services. (UWPF 4.23 (4)).”

It is the AAAC’s intent, in concurrence with the administration of the UW – Parkside, that the activities of this committee become one part of a variety of activities designed to improve the quality of teaching and learning within the university community. In addition to the assessment of student learning, these activities include program review, evaluation of teaching, merit review, and post-tenure review.

(Note that these activities are summarized un UW – Parkside’s consolidated review calendar.)

Committee members: Members of the AAAC during the 2003-2004 academic year were Bill Blanchard (Director of Institutional Research), Karen Crooker (Associate Professor of Human Resource Management), Tim Fossum (Professor of Computer Science), Patrick Goldsmith (Assistant Professor of Sociology), Mary Lenard (Assistant Professor of English), Mary Kay Schleiter (Associate Professor of Sociology), and Denise Widup (Lecturer, Mathematics). Sue Norton (Professor of Human Resource Management) was chair.

Overview of Assessment 

The AAAC has developed and monitored/supervised a number of activities since its creation in 1992. These activities are summarized in the assessment matrix available from the AAAC chair. Each academic year, the committee focuses on one or more of these activities, which are intended to

(1) Assist with the identification and/or assessment of student learning outcomes at several levels, including General Education outcomes and outcomes in the majors/programs;

(2) Collect and report back to the UW System evidence on the accountability indicators in the areas of quantitative and verbal skills;

(3) Report assessment results and research on assessment to UW – Parkside faculty, staff, and students, as well as to other important stakeholders;

(4) Provide feedback on assessment to UW – Parkside stakeholders for continuous improvement in the quality of the educational process.

For 2003-2004, the AAAC’s efforts were focused on two different areas: continuing assessment of specific learning outcomes in selected majors/programs, and expanding the scope of the General Education assessment efforts. Each activity will be described separately.

During the 2003-2004 academic year, the AAAC continued a process originally implemented in 2000-2001, where the AAAC chair, along with the appropriate dean and available members of the AAAC met with faculty and instructional staff from individual departments/programs to discuss their assessment efforts. In 2003-2004, the AAAC chair and Dean Cress met with faculty and instructional staff from Chemistry, Communication, English, and Geosciences. To help ensure continued assessment efforts on specific outcomes, the Dean had previously asked all departments in Arts and Sciences to (a) identify an assessment liaison, and (b) to select one learning outcome for the academic year on which to focus their assessment efforts.

In the Chemistry Department, the faculty decided to focus on one of the three outcomes in their recently-updated (January 2003) assessment plan: “students will be able to investigate a topic or problem by searching the chemical literature and will be able to prepare both written and oral summaries of their investigations.” Evidence about this outcome is collected primarily via the Senior Seminar, a one-credit course required for all majors. In this course, students are required to write a formal research paper and then make a presentation about their findings. The presentations are evaluated by other students, the instructor, and at least two other faculty members. The department is in the process of developing a formal evaluation rubric for the presentation and may seek advice from the Center for Teaching and Learning and/or the AAAC. The department is considering modifying the senior seminar so that two presentations are required; feedback from the first presentation could then be incorporated into the second presentation.

In the Communication Department, the faculty chose to focus on one of their 12 learning outcomes: “understanding communication as the social construction of reality.” Evidence about this outcome is gathered primarily from the senior capstone experience. A panel of faculty members is in the process of reviewing written work from this course, and the department has developed a formal evaluation instrument to help ensure uniformity. Additional evidence about this outcome is collected from exit interviews of graduating seniors.

The department has made several important changes recently based on evidence gathered for assessment. One is a change in required COMM coursework. Majors are now required to complete COMM 209 Communication Research Methods and COMM 211 Communication Theory. Previously, students were required to complete only COMM 211, and the faculty determined that students entering upper-level courses lacked adequate preparation in research methods. A second change for COMM majors is the addition of a required course in writing: English 201 Advanced Composition. This course was added because faculty felt that students needed more coursework in writing.

Finally, the department established some content standards for COMM 105 Public Speaking to ensure some consistency across sections and instructors. All sections now include at least one persuasive speech and at least one informational speech. The department plans to further refine this course according to the newly adopted General Education guidelines.

The English Department decided to focus their assessment efforts on English 100 Fundamentals of English. Entrance into this course is restricted to students who either achieve an adequate score on the English placement test or who complete ACSK 090 with a grade of C- or better. Because of demand, the department offers as many as 20 sections and faculty were understandably concerned about varying expectations across instructors. Most of this work has involved the development of a scoring/grading rubric. Seven instructors participated in a pilot study, and those who were able to be present at this discussion felt that it worked reasonably well. For 2004-2005, the department may develop a similar process for assessing work in English 101 Composition and Reading.

Several faculty noted that for a number of years the department used competency testing, which involved two readers and was tied to the completion of a specific course. There is clearly some interest in resurrecting this testing, as faculty feel it could help add some objectivity and consistency to the assessment process.

Finally, faculty mentioned some frustration with assessment of English 100 given the workload. Specifically, some faculty are concerned about the challenge of large enrollments. Most agreed that enrollment should be limited to a maximum of 22 students per section. Often, however, instructors are required to enroll 26 student per section. The dean noted that evidence gathered via the assessment process could be valuable in supporting an appropriate enrollment cap.

The Geosciences Department focused mostly on evaluating their curriculum in light of the Praxis II exam, which is a standardized test for students preparing for teacher certification. Since majors in Geosciences often pursue teacher certification, the department will review the array of science courses that are required for the major and may make some changes in the advising process – e.g., strongly encourage students who wish to pursue teacher certification to take appropriate fundamental natural science courses. Another important effort, which is in the developmental stages, is evaluation of student portfolios. Geosciences majors develop portfolios based mostly on their field notebooks, which are completed as they progress through the major. Faculty are examining ways to objectively evaluate these portfolios. Ideally, faculty would like to develop an evaluation process that is both formative – that is, that will allow students to receive timely feedback to enhance their learning – and summative.

The other major focus for the AAAC for 2003-2004 involved the reformulation of the General Education Breadth-of-Knowledge (BOK) requirement. The AAAC worked extensively with the General Education Committee to consider how the BOK requirements might be modified. Ultimately, the BOK requirement was redesigned as follows:

There are still three broad areas (Literature and Fine Arts; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Natural Sciences). In addition, the GEC and the AAAC identified specific foundational competencies in three broad areas: Communication (written communication, oral communication, information technology, and creative expression); Reasoned Judgment (critical thinking, ethical thinking, scientific thinking, quantitative literacy, and aesthetic appreciation) and Social Responsibility (diversity, civic engagement, global perspective, and teamwork). In order for a course to be officially listed as a BOK course, the course must address at least one competency from each area. Also, the department must articulate at least one tangible outcome for the competency.

The rationale for the reformulation was to ensure a more coherent General Education experience which will also be more practical to assess.

An important step in the transition process was a series of departmental visits. Various members of the General Education Committee and the AAAC visited departments to discuss the BOK reformulation and address concerns and answer questions. The proposed reformulation was officially approved by the faculty senate in April 2004.

Agenda for 2004-2005 

Most AAAC activities planned for 2004-2005 will involve ongoing activities. The department-by-department assessment visits to discuss assessment efforts for majors will continue, with plans to visit Chemistry, Criminal Justice, Geography, Geosciences, History, Modern Languages, Sociology/ Anthropology, and Theater Arts.

Also, the AAAC will continue to work closely with the General Education Committee and with the newly resurrected Center for Teaching and Learning on the reformulated BOK courses. The most important activity for 2004-2005 will be assisting departments and programs with the development of grading rubrics for the BOK courses.

Finally, in January 2005, the university will host a workshop on Embedded Assessment. Both UW – Parkside faculty and instructional staff and participants from outside the university will be invited to attend.